Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: The Lone Ranger

In the old west, the prosperity of the American railroad and progress for the country is threatened by the sadistic outlaw, Butch Cavendish. Cavendish has been captured and is about to be brought to justice, but his gang has been planning an escape. The escape is thwarted thanks to the mixed efforts by a newly anointed District Attorney, John Reid, and another prisoner, the Indian known as Tonto. Cavendish is brought to jail, but escapes again. John Reid, now deputized as a Texas Ranger by his brother Dan, joins a group of seven other Texas Rangers again on the hunt for Cavendish, only to massacred in a brutal ambush. John Reid survives the attack thanks to the efforts of Tonto, and now the two begin a trek to again bring Cavendish to justice, with Reid donning a mask to a hide his identity.

That’s an extremely loose description of the premise to The Lone Ranger the latest film from those who made the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and star Johnny Depp. I think that could be the real gauge of whether or not you like The Lone Ranger; if you’re a fan of those movies, you’ll probably have a pretty good time with this, I’m not exactly what you’d call a fan of those movies though.

In retrospect, I probably should’ve just sit this one out. I wasn’t exactly thrilled with what I saw in the initial trailers for the film, thinking this was going to be more of a send-up than anything else. Later trailers got me a little more enthused, with a lot more action and looking like this was going to be a little bit more serious than what I’d initially thought. I like the Lone Ranger in general, really enjoying the old Clayton Moore/Jay Silverheels TV series and the Filmation cartoons, but I wouldn’t exactly consider myself a fan. But still I think this has plenty of cinematic potential in the right hands, unfortunately I don’t think this is the right team for the job.

There’s a scene after Tonto discovers the still-living John Reid, that sums up the film for me anyway. Tonto is taking an unconscious Reid someplace where he can recover. Tonto is riding the horse that will be known as Silver and is pulling Reid behind him on a makeshift gurney. The horse stops to take a big dump and then continues to go forward then dragging Reid through what’s left behind, all to get a cheap laugh. Seeing that scene just made me wonder if there was any real respect for the legend of these characters at all- this doesn’t laugh with it’s characters, it laughs at them and is constantly punctuated by Depp’s characteristic quirky takes.

It tries to mix poignancy with it’s humor, offering up a couple of scenes that give off an extreme commentary of the genocide of the Indians during the old west, but just as quickly as these intense scenes end, they get punctuated with a joke that makes these scenes of seriousness just totally out of place in this movie.

On it’s plus side, it certainly does have a good look to it, and there’s an inspired use by composer Hans Zimmer of the classic William Tell Overture during a climactic chase scene. The unfortunate thing though is that at that point, I was just waiting for this to just end. The movie weighs in at two and half hours and just loads more and more into the mix as it goes on… and on. This could’ve easily had a half hour trimmed from it to make for something that moves at a more even clip.

Johnny Depp is hit and miss with me these days, though lately it’s more “miss” than anything else. His Tonto reminds me of a mix of a bad Jay Silverheels impression, with Dustin Hoffman from Little Big Man and Joey Bishop from the classic western comedy, Texas Across The River. There’s just too much mugging for the camera and winking at the audience for my tastes. Armie Hammer plays John Reid/the Lone Ranger starting off as a totally foppish character who is just inept at every turn. The two play their relationship together like a bickering couple which basically smacks in the face of the classic relationship between the two characters. I can’t really blame Hammer for this, but I certainly can blame Depp who has a producer credit in the film as well and who I’d like to think should just know better. Well, I take that back… what they did is just fine for the movie they wanted to make, this just isn’t the movie about the Lone Ranger and Tonto that I wanted to see.

There’s good support here, by William Fichtner (as Cavendish), Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, Helena Bonham Carter, James Badge Dale and Barry Pepper, but again I use the term “good” based around the movie they made and this not being the movie about the characters that I wanted to see.

The Lone Ranger was clearly just not the movie that I wanted to see. I’d love to see a director like a Lawrence Kasdan (Silverado) or George Miller (the Mad Max movies) get a hold of this and make something that could be thrilling and inspiring with just the right touches of humor that work for the situation rather than laugh at it. If you’re wild about the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, then you may very well have a good time with this and more power to you. For myself, I was left at the end asking “Who was that masked man?” and not in the good way…

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: World War Z

A global pandemic has just started to spread worldwide at an incredible rate turning any human who is stuck by it into a mindless flesh-eating zombie. Former UN investigator, Gerry Lane is with his family on the streets of Philadelphia when he first comes into contact and soon, Gerry is drafted back into action by those who now run the government. Gerry’s task; find the root of the problem and bring something back that can be used as a possible vaccine or cure.

That’s the premise of World War Z the latest movie from uber-star and producer Brad Pitt adapted from the best-selling novel from writer Max Brooks. Well, let’s say the term “adapted” isn’t exactly right here. Now I haven’t read Brooks’ book, by I certainly know it by reputation and know a few things about how he tells his story. If you’re coming into this and hoping that you’re going to see some sort of adaptation, you’d be better off to look at another movie that more faithfully adapted it’s source. From everything that I’ve gathered, this movie basically uses the title and some general ideas and then flies off in it’s own direction, all to really become an action movie franchise for Pitt.

The production of World War Z has been wrought with problems and I think it shows on the screen. Most of the problems have been around the script and it’s lack of a resolution that would be satisfying, but it’s also run into production overruns as well as reported disagreements between Pitt and director Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace). The movie was originally supposed to come out at Christmas of 2012, but got pushed back to hopefully solve it’s problems and unfortunately, from my point of view, it didn’t. Writer Damon Lindelof was brought in to craft a whole new back third of the film and give it some resolution of sorts of getting Gerry Lane back with his family, which in turn caused the production to scrap an entire battle sequence with Gerry leading forces into Russia to stop the zombie horde. This resolution is certainly there, but it feels abrupt and entirely out of place with the rest of the film as it’s been set up. What you get through the first two thirds are these extravagantly large action scenes that almost cry for more of the same in it’s resolution but you get something that’s much more smaller and actually more fitting to a movie like say, 28 Days Later. It doesn’t just stop there though, because, at least to me, it felt like there were other parts missing from this, including some scenes that I’ve seen in the trailer that didn’t make it into the final cut.

And speaking of the trailers, if you’ve seen them, you’ve already seen some of the film’s biggest moments and in most cases in a condensed form that already lays out the first two thirds of the film, there’s really nothing there for you to see further, though I do admit that a sequence that takes place entirely aboard an airplane does get better filled out, but that’s about it. They look great, I’ll certainly give the movie that, but there’s very little in the way of suspense. And if you’re a fan of classic zombie movies and are hoping to at least get some sort of horror element here, well it’s been very much soft-pedaled all to make this more appealing to a wider audience with a PG-13 rating.

If you’re going to see this, it’s more than likely for at least one of two things; Brad Pitt and the Zombies. Well, it already is softened with it’s zombies and so that leaves us with Pitt. Pitt does a good job with what he has here and certainly can play the role of action hero convincingly, I just wish he’d had something better to work with. I’ve heard some remark about actress Mireille Enos (who plays Lane’s wife, Karin) as being somewhat plain in comparison to her leading man. I tend to think this is entirely by design and made to make PItt seem more attainable to the female audience. The overall support in the movie is certainly serviceable, but there’s nothing that will really stand out.

To say World War Z was a disappointment is an understatement. Pitt’s certainly fine in the part, and action scenes aren’t bad, but you’ve seen them all in the trailers and there’s not much more to add to them. It’s troubled production leaves the film with a back third that feels like it’s for an entirely different movie and there’s little to no suspense at all in the movie until that back third and by then, I at least just didn’t care. If you’re wanting to see a good zombie thriller, bypass World War Z and watch George Romero’s original Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead again- or even watch Zack Snyder’s re-make of Dawn or Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later or AMC’s The Walking Dead, any of them will give you a far more satisfying experience.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Man of Steel

I’m 50 years old and have been a comic book fan pretty much all of my life. It all started for me at the age of 4 and my “gateway drug” into this whole world was Superman. I got my earliest exposure to Superman by seeing an episode of the George Reeves TV show and then that was shortly followed by my Mom buying me my first comic book, a giant-sized issue of Superman. I’ve mentioned it before, but I actually learned to read from a Superman comic before even entering kindergarten and distinctly remember asking my Mom what the word “invulnerable” meant.

Sure, most kids during my period grew out of comics, but they just stuck with me. I can’t tell you why for sure, I wasn’t a kid who necessarily felt like an outcast and felt the need to have this world to escape to, I just loved the form. I loved the idea of this character who had this bright primary-colored costume and he could fly, and had great strength and this plethora of wonderful super-powers. For me, Superman led to Batman and in turn led to the rest of the members of DC’s Justice League. As I got a little older, I got an allowance of 50 cents a week and that allowed me to start to buy my own comics (usually two a week unless I saw one of DC’s 100-Page Super-Spectaculars and then the whole allowance was blown on that book). Whenever I bought my own comics, Superman was almost always a part of it whether through his own comic, Action Comics, Superboy or team-ups with Batman in World’s Finest Comics or the rest of the DC characters in the pages of Justice League of America. I was massively hooked.

This continued into my mid-teens even further. When I was 16, I got my first job working at the local Wal-Mart in Lousiana, Missouri and all of a sudden just had more money than ever before to buy comics, much to the chagrin of my Dad. Superman continued to be a big favorite for me even after discovering the world of Marvel Comics as well. When Warners debuted Superman: The Movie in 1978, I’d only just gotten my driver’s license and still wasn’t really allowed yet to drive much further than around town. The nearest theatre to Louisiana that was showing Superman was in Quincy, Illinois, about 30 miles away and I made the offer to my Dad that I’d pay for my whole family (Mom, Dad and my brother) to see the movie if he’d drive us there, and he did. I came out of that theatre thinking that I’d seen the greatest movie that was ever made and was just flabbergasted that it wasn’t recognized as the best movie of the year by the Oscars.

Thanks for bearing with me this long, but I really thought it was necessary to go into my love for Superman before I get into the review of Man of Steel. Superman is extremely special to me and so I certainly wanted to illustrate that. I’ve read comic stories of the character ranging from his debut in 1938 all to the present day. I’ve seen this character (and comics themselves) go through massive changes in all of this time, so I’m no stranger to that and further even embraced them. It’s only in the past couple of years, since DC debuted their re-booted New 52 line, that I’ve thought things have started to drift from what I’ve loved about the character and so the idea of a new movie that was going to make Superman palatable to the Twiiter age was certainly something to give me pause.

When the first trailer to Man of Steel came out, I have to admit I had a gut reaction to it that was pretty negative- everything just looked to dark and somber and culminated with a line from Superman’s adopted earth father, Jonathan Kent, that maybe he should have let people die rather than expose himself. This just didn’t set that well with me, but I was still willing to give this a chance, especially considering that I have a huge amount of respect for the director of the movie, Zack Snyder and producer Christopher Nolan. Once an extended trailer came along, I got quite a bit more enthusiastic for the film. There were changes made here that seemed to me to be more in the right direction- less somber and more sense of wonder. I got more enthusiastic about it, but still cautious.

Now, Man of Steel is finally here, I’ve seen the whole thing for myself and I have to say, I just had a ball with the movie. I’ve still got a few problems with the film one major and a couple that are minor, but I had a great time here.

Man of Steel re-tells the character’s origin and pits him against his first major threat, an invasion of the planet by a small cadre of soldiers who have survived the explosion of the planet Krypton, led by General Zod. That’s all I’m gonna give you when it comes to the premise and basically that’s all that you need to know going in. The rest you should just see for yourself, though there’s a few points I’ll get into with it that really stand out.

But first, let me just get right up front with my problems with the movie. My major problem is that I just flat-out hate the look of the new costume. I’m certainly open to changes with the character as long as fundamentally, it’s still the same character and part of that for me is in the character’s look. Certainly Superman’s look has evolved since his debut in 1938, but fundamentally it has remained the same; bright primary colors that have a proper aesthetic balance. In recent years, it’s become a trend amongst newer fans to say that the red trunks that the character has worn just look wrong and that would be practical. I tend to think that the word “practical” when it comes to the look of the character should just go right out the window, he’s a comic book character that exists in a comic book world and this is an aspect that doesn’t need to be reflected in the real world. It’s been argued that all you really need for the character is just the basic profile- a well chiseled figure with a red cape and the red “S” emblem and that says it all. I disagree with this and think that the brightness of the colors and the division of the colors says the right thing, this character is the originator and his basic look stands for that. I look at the new look for the film, and think that this new costume looks more like high-tech long-johns that should have an equally high-tech super trapdoor. The costume is too textured and becomes to shiny in some scenes. Yeah, sure maybe I’m just being traditionalist in my thinking here, but I just don’t think it needs to be altered, neither here or in the comics. That’s my major problem with the movie and yet, I still had a blast with the film.

My minor issues come with a couple of specific scenes and so there’s a few spoilers ahead, just skip to the next paragraph if you don’t want to be spoiled. I’d mentioned above about a scene in the first trailer where Jonathan Kent suggests that maybe his young son Clark should’ve let people die rather than risk exposure. That scene is certainly still within the movie and within it’s proper context, it actually works to an extent. The words would make more sense if young Clark Kent had had this experience in 2013, but as the scene plays, it takes place about 20 years in the past and it becomes questionable if Jonathan Kent would’ve had this outlook on life then. it makes sense for now, but that far back in the past could and maybe should be a different point of view. The other scene is near the end of the film. Superman has saved the day and comes back home to make sure his mother is OK. Martha Kent makes a statement to Clark that Jonathan “knew” as to what sort of man Clark would grow to be and then another flashback is shown that shows the young Clark Kent playing with his dog and wearing a red towel as cape. You see this sort of imagery and it’s the sort of thing that Superman would inspire, but it couldn’t even begin to be part of his life yet without knowing his true origins. This scene shows up in the trailers for the film as well and I certainly liked that part of those trailers, but then it was shown out of context. As it plays within the film, it just doesn’t make sense. A better use for this sort of imagery would’ve been to have made this kid who was playing with the red towel attached a kid who was inspired by Superman after the events of the film had taken place. Using the scene in that context would’ve cemented the acceptance that this alien among us was gaining.

Those are my problems with the film, and with the exception of the costume, the other scenes are somewhat moot considering that there is just so much heart here on the part of director Zack Snyder and writers David Goyer and Christopher Nolan to do what they can to preserve the legend and still make it palatable to a new audience (and just to give Snyder further credit, he’s been on the record for wanting to have Superman’s traditional look in the film, but was overruled). There’s just so much here that is so right, that even with my problems, I can’t help but love the movie.

Let’s start with the basic origins. Right off the bat, we’re on the planet Krypton and in regards to it’s look and feel, it’s 180 degrees opposite of what was done back in Richard Donner’s movie in 1978, and yet for Superman fans, this new version of Krypton draws on aspects right out of the comics, ranging from the days of late 50s and 60s from editor Mort Weisenger right up to the mid 80s reboot from writer and artist John Byrne. It’s an exciting vision of Krypton that’s just given further credence by an exceptional performance by Russell Crowe as Jor-El. From there, the movie makes the jump to the adult Clark Kent wandering the world trying to find himself and in the midst of this, the bigger story starts to grow, but intermixed with this are flashback scenes relating to her early life and his upbringing by the Kents. One of my big problems with last year’s Amazing Spider-Man was the fact that it was just so laborious in re-telling the character’s origin and that the pace just made the whole thing dull as can be. Not the case here at all, everything is mixed together properly and it all serves in the big picture.

The visual effects are absolutely spectacular and the fight scenes are incredible. It’s amazing in itself to see a Superman movie where the main character actually does use his fists to devastating effect. In some instances, the visual effects looked like they drew some inspiration straight from the old Max Fleisher Superman cartoons of the 40s. When Superman first takes flight, I was particularly satisfied to see the character actually smiling and taking great joy in this new achievement.

The characters are all extremely well-drawn. Certainly much credit goes to Goyer and Nolan for their script, but it’s the cast that truly gives this life and it starts right at the top with the casting of Henry Cavill as Superman/Clark Kent. There’s just so much heart in Cavill’s body language alone that you can tell this actor is throwing himself into the part. Amy Adams would not have been my first choice to play Lois Lane, but she’s made me a believer and after the fact, I’ve found out that she’s actually a fan and has tried to get herself into some sort of Superman projects for awhile now. She and Cavill have a natural chemistry together that’s further exemplified by a nice little twist that’s thrown into the relationship. Im sold… Adams and Cavill are the Lois and Clark for a new generation and I cannot wait to see how this evolves in future movies.

I’d mentioned Russell Crowe above, and earlier in the year I saw Crowe in the movie Broken City and thought it was one of the best performances that he’d turned in in awhile. Well, he’s starting a string now and his turn as Jor-El is absolutely terrific and he literally commands the screen when he’s on-screen. I also have to give good marks to actress Ayelet Zurer who plays his wife Lara, she certainly looks right in the part and further conveys the weight properly an extreme situation that she’s put into. Though I have my problems with some of the scenes that Jonathan Kent has, that’s no reflection on Kevin Costner’s extremely earnest performance. Both he and actress Diane Lane as Martha Kent are just terrific and totally exemplifies the salt-of-the-earth upbringing that Clark Kent has.

On the villain front, we have Michael Shannon in the lead here as General Zod, and again, I cannot say enough good words about what this intense actor brings to the part. Shannon’s Zod truly does represent a character who thinks he has Krypton’s best interests at heart with little regard to what others think. His main lieutenant, Faora-Ul is played by Antje Traue and she certainly has terrific presence, especially in the fight scenes of the film.

Rounding out our main cast is nice little supporting work from actors Harry Lennix, Richard Schiff and Christopher Meloni as the United States authority figures that Superman works with. These guys are just always solid and certainly lend credibility to the parts. As a Superman fan, it was particularly gratifying to see Schiff play Emil Hamilton, a character straight out of the 80s re-boot. Laurence Fishburne plays Daily Planet editor Perry White and I guess “earnest” is the key word for all of the performances in the movie and Fishburne certainly is that (and as an aside, Fishburne plays Jack Crawford on NBC’s Hannibal series, a show that deserves to be watched in greater numbers).

There’s just loads of Easter Eggs peppered throughout this movie that really do add to the total enjoyment for the Superman fan, or at least to this one, but it’s really just icing on an already delicious cake. Zack Snyder was certainly the right man for the job in bringing to life a new Superman for a new generation and I can only hope that Warners is wise enough to put him in charge for any further sequels as well. Man of Steel was thoroughly entertaining to this long-time Superman fan and I certainly hope this gives Warners enough impetus to put more DC Comics characters on the fast track for the big screen, but only as long as the same consideration is involved. With Christopher Nolan’s Batman movies and now with Man of Steel it’s certainly been shown that you can be faithful to the characters and bring some pretty heady weight to the film as well. Now if they’d just go back to the character’s traditional look I’d be really happy, but still Man of Steel is highly, highly recommended and I cannot wait to see it again.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: The Purge

The year is 2022. In the United States, unemployment is less than 1% and crime is at it’s lowest rate ever. The reason for this is that the powers-that-be (known here as the New Founding Fathers) have passed an act called The Purge which allows anyone and everyone a 12-hour open period of letting out any sort of pent-up aggression in all sorts of violent acts without any sort of legal consequences.

Purge night is about to take place and our focus is on the Sandin family. The Sandins live in an affluent neighborhood with a house that’s a little bigger than the rest made that way because James Sandin (the father) sells home security systems that are designed to fortify homes for The Purge. James’ wife, Mary, is a typical housewife who just wants the best for her family. Their children, Charlie and Zoey, question aspects of The Purge. 7:00 rolls around and it’s now time for the Sandins to place their home into lockdown mode. Charlie sees a bloody stranger come near their house (through home security cameras), takes compassion on him and lets down the security system to take him in, much to the alarm of his parents. After they’ve taken the stranger in, a group of masked, privileged youth approach the house and threaten to tear it apart in order to get to their prey, vowing to kill the Sandins as well as long as they are in their way.

That’s the premise to The Purge from writer and director James DeMonaco, who prior to this has worked as a producer and writer on the Crash TV series as well as having written such films as the re-make of Assault on Precinct 13 and The Negotiator. It’s an utterly ridiculous concept, yet the same could be said for other science and speculative fiction works as well. The real trick here is how well do you sell it and still make it convincing and as it is, The Purge is very much a mixed bag, though to it’s credit, it certainly does spur some lively conversation after viewing it.

The concept itself one could basically see as government sanctioned national disaster that acts as a catharsis to it’s citizenry after the fact. But where it falls apart is that it’s assuming that all of the citizens are going to go about their business normally after the Purge takes place. During televised segments shown during the film, the question is put out there that The Purge is designed to eliminate the less desirable elements out of society (i.e. the homeless, criminals, the poor) and most of the film (at least for this setting) backs that up, especially after the Bloody Stranger and his pursuers are introduced, but to DeMonaco’s credit, he does manage to twist this a bit by the film’s end, but it’s still not enough to make up for some of the basic concept shortcomings.

This takes the assumption that everyone automatically “behaves” for the rest of the year, but obviously that wouldn’t be the case. As the rules of The Purge are explained right before it takes place (thanks to an Emergency Broadcast System message), all emergency services are suspended and only a certain level of weaponry is allowed to be used. That level of weaponry is pretty vague, though based off of what we see here it looks to be it’s highest form is guns. Crime is at it’s lowest rate, but considering human behavior, there would still have to be some high level stuff taking place, and one just has to wonder what is there going on in the world that takes care of that. What are the long-range consequences to The Purge? Do people plan for this? How do those that survive these acts then see their neighbors after the fact? These things are lightly touched on in the movie, but because DeMonaco has centered this around one well-to-do neighborhood, it becomes more of a diatribe against gun-control and social conservatives more than anything else. Is that his point? It’s really hard to say, especially after an event late in the film that shifts things around a bit. The final message could be just as simple as there are no quick and simple solutions to any problem, but based on how this story is told, it doesn’t come off quite that way. This concept is just really too big to be satisfying in your basic home invasion terror film.

Now I have to say though, for the most part, the home invasion aspect of the film is pretty well made, only falling apart in areas where characters just disappear for a time (this happens both with the Bloody Stranger- that’s how he’s known in the movie- and the daughter Zoey) only to reappear when the story calls for them to be relevant. The performances are pretty good. Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey play James and Mary Sandin and they’re certainly solid, as our the performances by Max Burkholder and Adelaide Kane who play Charlie and Zoey. Their work is good, they’re just hamstrung by a script that’s trying to do way too much within a very short time frame. Rhys Wakefield plays the Polite Stranger (that’s how it’s listed in the credits) who’s the leader of the mob who invades the Sandin home. It’s a terrifically creepy performance and puts me in the mind of the protagonists from Michael Haneke’s Funny Games. As good as this performance is though, it also leads to another of the film’s problems. This group that invades the Sandin home is masked and the only one who reveals himself is Wakefield’s character, the rest behave as this sort of hive-mind mob and none of the others have any sort of voice in the movie. It’s almost like he’s controlling a cult that has it’s own agenda and would this be something that would be allowed in this new world order? Again, another question that’s just too big for something that’s made as a home invasion thriller.

Technically, The Purge is certainly well-made, features some solid performances and some genuinely creepy moments. It is a ridiculous concept that will certainly leave some just laughing at it by it’s end and have others arguing it based on their own political leanings. That to me anyway is the film’s strongest aftereffect; the pure discussion that will come from it, though it doesn’t necessarily translate to a satisfying film experience. The Purge, in comparison to other summer films, is a low-budgeted film and so far has done very well for itself on it’s first weekend. That certainly leaves me to believe that a sequel could be in store- I’d actually embrace that idea if a potential sequel would look at this idea from an altogether different point of view and further flesh out it’s core concept.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Fast & Furious 6

Owen Shaw is a ruthless criminal mastermind who has been running roughshod through Europe, committing his own brand of “vehicular warfare” in pursuit of a computer chip that can cause a communications blackout for entire countries. In pursuit of Shaw is Federal Agent Luke Hobbs and his newly-minted partner Riley Hicks. With his investigation, Hobbs has found similarities between Shaw’s methods and that of the team put together by Dominic Toretto and Brian O’Connor, who Hobbs previously encountered in Rio de Janeiro. But something else has been discovered as well; Toretto’s former lover, Letty, who was believed to be dead, has been seen as part of Shaw’s crew. Now, Hobbs has tracked down Dom Toretto and has made him the offer to both find Letty and gain full pardons for his crew in exchange for their help in taking down Shaw.

That’s the nutshell premise to Fast & Furious 6, the obvious sixth film in the Fast & Furious franchise, from director Justin Lin, marking his fourth time at the helm of this series. Now I’ve mentioned this before (and surely well again) that just talking about this series brings a standard set of eye-rolling with some moviegoers. And while I love this series, and really enjoyed this film, I still don’t expect that to change the minds of those that look upon it in a downward direction. With Fast Five this venerable series changed it’s direction from being solely about the underground street racing culture to taking on heist film elements. That direction change continues further with Fast & Furious 6, going from heist film to out-and-out over-the-top crime action, but still maintaining elements that it’s known for. As I said, I love the series, and thought Fast Five was about as good as it gets with this. Fast & Furious 6 is still quite a bit of fun for it’s fans, though I do think it drops down a bit from it’s prior iteration.

The constant though that keeps this entertaining comes down to two things; a very entertaining cast of anti-hero characters who it’s audience have grown quite comfortable with and high-speed action that just gets upped a notch with each film. Both are certainly very apparent here, though I think the characters get a little short-changed while the action gets upped dramatically, especially during the film’s back third. Now keep in mind, when I’m talking about the characters here, I certainly know that we’re not talking about Oscar-calibre depth, I’m well aware of that, it’s just that the stakes for this crew seemed a little more grounded in the prior film that it does here. Conversely, the climactic action gets upped so much more that it seems like it’s more at home in a Japanese anime film than a live-action film. It’s all still quite a bit of fun, but it didn’t quite hit me with the same balance that Fast Five did.

The film still looks fantastic and even though the action scenes stretch credibility in whole new manners, they’re still very entertaining to watch. I don’t think of these movies as being high art by any means, but they’re certainly high state-of-the-art in their technical aspects.

Returning from the previous movies, we have Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Gal Godot, Elsa Pataky and Chris “Ludacris” Bridges. There’s an obvious chemistry at work here and it certainly goes a far way in projecting this franchise’s definition of family. As I said, those of us who are fans of the series are comfortable with these players and the characters they play. They don’t really rock the boat a whole lot here, though there are a couple of little surprises.

New players this time around include Gina Carano, Joe Taslim and Luke Evans. Carano plays Hobbs’ new partner, Riley Hicks. Prior to this film, Carano is best known for her MMA talents and her starring role in Stephen Soderbergh’s Haywire. I think the absolute world of Carano, she’s always fun to watch and she doesn’t disappoint here at all, though with such a large cast, she doesn’t get the chance to be as showy as what she was in Haywire but still, she’s a welcome addition. Joe Taslim plays Jah, a member of Shaw’s crew. Prior to this movie, Taslim was best known for being in the Indonesian action thriller, The Raid: Redemption and I certainly thought it was cool to see his addition here and he certainly gets a chance to show his action chops in a nice scene with Gibson and Kang. Luke Evans plays Owen Shaw, the main villain of the piece and before this movie, he’s been in such films as The Three Musketeers, Immortals and The Raven. Most recently, Evans was in the Anchor Bay/WWE co-production No One Lives in which he played quite the twisted character, so he’s no stranger to a villainous role. Evans is pretty darn good here and I get more impressed with him each time I see him. This won’t win him any awards, but still he commands the screen and can certainly hold his own with the leads.

I really did have a good time with Fast & Furious 6 though as I said above, I don’t think it quite hits the same balance that Fast Five had. I’d mentioned the short-changing of the characters and part of that short-changing includes just how large this cast is, and added to that was that Shaw’s crew was pretty much, as it’s termed by Tyrese Gibson’s Roman character, the “evil-twin” version of Toretto’s crew. On one side, that’s really cool to see but on the other side, that puts this film as having just as many characters as a Tolkien adaptation but with only 130 minutes to deal with them all. Now again, I’m not expecting award-winning stuff here, but still something that grounds this more. It’s still a lot of fun, there’s a lot of thrills, but it’s not quite as “on” as what the prior film was. By the film’s end though, we’re left in a place that can return the series to it’s roots, and that may not necessarily be a bad thing at this point in the series, especially after the little teaser of what’s to come right as the credits get ready to roll. Even with my own issues with the film, I’d still recommend Fast & Furious 6 pretty highly, especially if you’re already a fan of the series. As I understand it right now, the seventh film in the series is already on the books for coming out next year, but this time around in the hands of director James Wan, who’s best known for the first Saw movie. It will certainly be interesting to see what comes next.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Captain Kirk and the crew of the starship Enterprise have successfully prevented the destruction of a developing world, but at a cost; violating the Prime Directive of the Federation and exposing their ship to the primitive culture of the planet. While the right and wrong of this action is being explored, a greater threat is developing. A major Federation London-based installation has just been destroyed in a massive act of terrorism committed by a rogue Federation operative named John Harrison. Now, it’s up to Kirk, Spock and the crew of the Enterprise to find and kill Harrison before further acts of terrorism can occur.

That is a real loose description to the premise of Star Trek Into Darkness, the follow-up film to 2009’s massively successful Star Trek from director J.J. Abrams. Abrams is back at the helm for this sequel and to say that I was impressed and satisfied with this film would be an understatement.

When Abrams first re-booted the franchise in 2009, I thought he did it 100% right; he took the classic characters that Star Trek is best known for (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, et al) and brought them back to the start of their careers, keeping familiar Star Trek tropes and giving them a new kick but still remaining true to it’s source. That plan is continued with Star Trek Into Darkness with further exploration of the relationship between Kirk and Spock as well as the rest of their crew, though it is somewhat lighter this time around than it was in 2009. There’s plenty of little easter eggs here for the long-time Trek fan (like myself) and some new takes with other facets of Trek lore, which I really can’t go into because that would involve some pretty big spoilers and honestly, I have no desire to spoil anything with this review.

The film absolutely looks fantastic from all facets; production design, cinematography, and the look of the cast. In 2009, I was pleased as can be to see the classic original series uniforms brought back and they’re still in play here, helping to give this a bright and colorful look, which sort of spits in the face of what the popular trend is now in the depiction of classic genre characters on the big screen and further… it still works. Composer Michael Giacchino is back with an excellent score that continues it’s original theme, punctuates the action in the right places and still pays homage to the original. I chose to see this movie in 3D and I thought it was pretty impressive 3D my own self. It’s immersive and in-your-face and at least for me added a little more to the world on-screen. Now with that said, I don’t think it’s necessary to see the movie in 3D to fully appreciate it, but I certainly enjoyed it.

The only complaint that I have about the film at all is just in the title. The addition of “Into Darkness” just seems there to be a marketing tool to tell newcomers to the series that this is going to plunge the series into a realistic grittiness that they want to embrace. But there’s nothing here that at least to me seemed to say that on say the same level of a Batman movie. This version of the classic characters are still very much in a formative stage with this film and by it’s end, it’s now capable to advance to new territory or at least new territory for this version of the characters. There is still very much hope and optimism here. It may not be enough to suit some fans, but for me, I thought it was satisfying and I can’t wait to see the next film.

A large part of the anticipation is due to this excellent cast. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin are all back reprising their characters from the original, as is Bruce Greenwood. One of my favorite moments in the whole movie occurs midway through the film and just features an exchange of dialogue between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and right at that moment, Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Karl Urban cemented the deal for me. they weren’t just new actors taking on the parts, they were the characters that I know and love.

New to this film are Alice Eve and Peter Weller and I think both are pretty terrific in their parts, but I don’t want to say more without spoiling things. Benedict Cumberbatch plays John Harrison and for me, this is my first exposure to Cumberbatch as I still have yet to see the Sherlock series. I was extremely impressed with this young actor and just think he’s destined to bigger things down the road. When J.J. Abrams makes the seventh Star Wars movie, he’d be wise to do something with Cumberbatch in that as well.

There’s certainly a lot of debate out there right now of whether or not this is “true” Star Trek and looking over the reviews section in the IMDB website, I see a lot of disappointment from long-time fans of the series. Well, I’m a long-time fan of the series as well and this works for me. It takes a classic series and gives it a bright new sheen while adding in a few new aspects (most notably, the Spock/Uhura relationship). By the end of Star Trek Into Darkness we’re left in a place where this series now has an opportunity to move beyond it’s initial starting point from being more Earth-centric and characters still in the process of gelling together. I’m eager to see what happens next. Very much recommended.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Iron Man 3

In the wake of the epic alien battle in New York with the Avengers, billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, is snow suffering from anxiety attacks. Stark’s eyes have been open to what kind of world he’s now in, and as such, he’s become a constant workhorse in making sure that the person most important to him, Pepper Potts, is protected. In the midst of this, the world is now facing a new threat in the form of an international terrorist called The Mandarin. Stark’s best friend, James Rhodes, has assumed a new identity as the Iron Patriot and for now remains the first line of defense against The Mandarin. In addition, Aldrich Killian, the head of a new company called AIM (Advanced Idea Mechanics) wants to enter into a partnership with Stark for his own mysterious means.

That’s a broad description to the premise to Iron Man 3, the first movie to follow in the wake of Marvel’s Avengers movie and so expectations are extremely high for this, maybe so high that no movie right in the wake can hope to meet them. I thought this was certainly watchable, but it’s flavor is quite a bit different from it’s predecessors in the Marvel movies. If I was looking at this as a comic book, this feels like a fill-in issue created to give the regular creative team a break, and the fill-in doesn’t quite reach what you’re used to.

And that’s exactly what it is, Jon Favreau is no longer at the helm of the film and this time it falls into the hands of co-writer and director Shane Black. Now Black is certainly no stranger to high-power action films, having written films like Lethal Weapon, The Monster Squad, The Last Boy Scout and The Long Kiss Goodnight as well as having directed and written Kiss Kiss Bang Bang with Robert Downey Jr. in the lead of that film. These are certainly entertaining movies, and all have a distinct flavor to them that’s been identified with Shane Black. Unfortunately for Iron Man 3, it feels more like a Shane Black movie than it does part of the Marvel series with an over-reliance on action movie cliches and dialogue that feels more written than actually spoken.

There’s a lot of comedic moments in the film, and while there’s nothing really wrong with doing that, doing it in a Marvel movie seems to me anyway to soft-pedal a lot of the threat. Everybody in the film (or most everybody anyway) seems to have the same sort of snarky flavor that just doesn’t lend themselves to taking any of what’s happening that overtly serious. There’s action movie cliches all around, with to me the most egregious being the use of the high-opera type of ending with hero versus villain and the girl in-between atop a very high structure. This cliche has been around forever, but first used in comic book films way back in Tim Burton’s first Batman movie, and used again and again since. I expect a bit better of the Marvel movies than to rely on this old chestnut.

Now to be fair, the action sequences and visual effects are really, really nice and certainly the part of the movie that still makes it very watchable. The only thing that I’m not really that thrilled with is the new design of the Iron Man armor that’s dominantly used in the film. Call me a traditionalist if you like, but I like the distinct look of the red and gold armor and this new version that’s mostly gold and chrome, just feels a little softer and ring true to the comics. It’s not the only armor used in the film and there’s a lot of versions here though that do owe to previous comic appearances and it’s a nice little easter egg for fans, but I don’t think it’s quite enough.

As far as the cast goes, Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau all return reprising their parts from the prior movies. They certainly do what’s asked of them here so there’s no real complaints. The standout for me is Paltrow who actually gets to do a few action bits that are pretty entertaining.

New to this film are Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian, Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen (another scientist who works for AIM- again, there’s way more to her than just that), Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin and James Badge Dale as Savin, a bodyguard to Killian. Guy Pearce is smarm personified to a point of being cartoony, but to his credit, I think he actually excels in the action scenes that he’s in. The biggest disappointment to me though is Kingsley as The Mandarin and it’s for a couple of reasons that aren’t entirely Kingsley’s fault. Beware, I’m going to go into a couple of spoiler moments here, so if you haven’t seen the movie yet, you might want to skip the rest of this paragraph and proceed to the next. In the comics, The Mandarin is to Iron Man as say The Joker is to Batman or Lex Luthor is to Superman. The way Kingsley performs this character it doesn’t really quite have that much threat to especially with his vocal performance which sounds like it’s part Asian, part European and part Minnesotan. I don’t have any idea about why this was the chosen way to go with his voice, but it just doesn’t convey any sort of threat at all. In addition, there is a huge twist to The Mandarin here that just totally betrays the concept of the character as he’s been seen in the comics, so much so that it reduces the character to a joke and leads to another dialogue scene between Kingsley and Downey that again just deadens the movie.

I chose to see this in 3D and basically the 3D here is just OK and not at all complimentary to the film. Originally, I’ve been dodging all of the 3D versions of the Marvel movies because they’ve been added as an afterthought (at least to me), but I figured by this time maybe the film had finally been shot with 3D in mind. It’s just not the case here and if you choose to see this, then don’t even bother with it.

As with the other Marvel movies, there is an additional scene at the end of the credits and while this one doesn’t exactly look like it’s building towards anything what it does do is add a little further continuity between the movies which considering what they’ve originally sought to build here, is something that they’re going to have to stick with for these films.

As I said at the start of this, expectations are certainly high for this movie and maybe they’re so high that there might not be anyway that they could ever be met. After I saw The Avengers, I walked out of the theatre just with an incredible high and so you naturally want every Marvel movie to follow to at least come close to giving you that same feeling. Unfortunately, Iron Man 3 just doesn’t do it. Oh, I still think it’s watchable and it certainly does have it’s moments particularly with some great effects and action scenes, but it’s cliche-ridden script and jokey nature just don’t give this film any sense of threat whatsoever. I could see that with some distance, watching Iron Man 3 again might be a different and more enjoyable experience, but after this initial viewing, I don’t much have a desire to do that any time soon.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Oz, the Great and Powerful

Oscar Diggs, also known as Oz, is a small-time magician with dubious ethics and working for a traveling circus that’s now in dusty Kansas. thanks to Oz’s womanizing ways, he’s forced to make a run from the circus (in a balloon) right in the midst of a destructive tornado. This tornado whisks Oz to the magical land bearing his name. Now Oz finds himself to be the object of fulfilling a prophecy in the magical land; a great and powerful wizard with the same name as the land saves it’s people from the forces of evil.

That’s the basic premise of Oz, the Great and Powerful, a prequel film to Victor Fleming’s The Wizard of Oz, and also the latest film from director Sam Raimi, who’s best known for his work on the original three Spider-Man movies, the Evil Dead series, Darkman and Drag Me to Hell. Now I like the original film, it’s an obvious classic, and it’s certainly strong enough to weather any number of sequels, prequels and re-interpretations that have come after it. For myself, if you first told that this was coming, I probably wouldn’t have been that interested in seeing it, but you tell me that it’s coming and that Sam Raimi is directing it, then it becomes a different story. I’m a huge fan of Raimi’s work and from what I first saw in the trailer to the movie, it looked to me like he was going to throw his all into this.

Well, for me he did and i ended up enjoying Oz, the Great and Powerful way more than I ever expected I would. Raimi’s an obvious fan of the original and it’s evident in his style of making the film. Raimi knows that the original is a simple morality story and he basically does the same thing here. The characters are played in broad strokes and there’s certainly plenty of hints and homages to what’s to come from Fleming’s film. This all worked for me but at the same time I can certainly see how it won’t for others. After Sony re-booted the Spider-Man series with The Amazing Spider-Man, one thing that I saw that other’s liked about it over what Raimi did, was the style of filmmaking. The new Spider-Man film was trying to be a little more grounded and much darker in tone, whereas Raimi’s films (third one withstanding, but it’s hard to blame Raimi entirely for that) are much more broad and carefree. If that style is a turn-off to you, then I’ll tell you right now, save your money and find something else to see.

Raimi’s visuals are just fantastic, brimming with life and color and an artificiality to them that screams pure theatrics, but totally suitable to the subject matter and Raimi’s storytelling style. Raimi’s thoroughly embraced the 3D process with this and I think he’s done a pretty darn fine job. The opening of the film is in black and white and side-boxed with more of an old TV full frame. Seeing that in 3D is like looking through a window, though Raimi has the odd moments’ where a few of the effects pop outside it. Once we get to Oz, the screen expands and the world around us becomes much more immersive and Raimi then plays a little more freely with effects that are also “in your face.” He does a great job with this and totally gets how 3D should be used. It’s a terrific enhancement here and I don’t think I’d even want to see this again without it.

My biggest issue with the film is that I think it’s pacing is just a little too relaxed in some places and it could probably be tightened up a little bit, but that’s not a dealbreaker by any means. Danny Elfman punctuates the action pretty nicely with a wonderful score, but that leads to another slight disappointment and that;s with the use of a Mariah Carey song over the film’s end credits. Now granted, it’s the end credits, most aren’t even staying through them, but I sort of look at as a little signature to the film and like to watch them my own self (and sometimes you get a nice little “easter egg” or two in side). The song just seemed out of place with the rest of the look and the style of the film, but really it’s a moot point.

I know there’s a lot of issues out there with the casting of the film, particularly with James Franco as Oz and Mila Kunis as Theodora. I know that Franco wasn’t the first choice for the film, but honestly it just didn’t bother me at all. Franco looked to me like he was having a ball making this and I certainly think he carries some charisma about him. I did make a little joke to a friend as we were watching this. Oz is making a speech to the people that he’s being charged to protect and here he is in his black coat and hat, standing tall and making a grandiose speech in front of all of these colorful inhabitants. I said to my friend, “It’s Tim Burton’s Lincoln!” (OK, it was a long way to go for little pay-off, but still I thought it was funny). Mila Kunis was a big surprise for me with this, I wasn’t necessarily expecting the transformation that she goes through here and I was quite pleased to see her embracing it and playing it just as big as she could. Rachel Weisz plays Theodora’s sister, Evanora, and I think she’s good in the part, but just a little dry compared to what Kunis does. Michelle Williams plays Glinda the Good Witch, and again, it’s nice work though it doesn’t quite carry the same opulence that’s in the original, but still well done. Further support is provided by the voices of Zach Braff and Joey King (though both are seen in different parts at the start of the movie) and again, I thought they were fitting to what Raimi’s presenting. And of course, being a Sam Raimi movie, it’s nice to see Bruce Campbell here as well, even if it is in a brief part as the Winkie Gate Keeper.

I had a great time with Oz, the Great and Powerful, as did the people that I saw it with. Sam Raimi’s visuals and broad theatrical style carry the film and I think it’s evident on-screen that the actors are having a blast making this little slice of fantasy. It’s a fun film with a big emphasis on the “fun” and it’s certainly enhanced with some wonderfully produced 3D. Very much recommended.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: The Last Exorcism Part II

Following the events of the first movie in which the Reverend Cotton Marcus re-discovered his lost faith and sacrificed himself to taking down the demon Abalam from hatching it’s plans, it seems that the only survivor of the event was the object of Abalam’s possession, the young girl Nell Sweetzer. Nell has escaped her fate and now begins to put her life back together, with help from the people of a halfway house in New Orleans. Nell starts to turn her life around, but soon discovers that Abalam wasn’t destroyed at all, and soon her life begins to take another horrific turn.

That’s the premise to The Last Exorcism Part II, once again from producer Eli Roth, but this time with a new director and writer in tow, director Ed Gass-Donnelly who also serves up the screenplay with writer Damien Chazelle. It’s certainly understandable why a sequel to the first would be made; it was a cheap production and it made a boatload of dough… and, it just happened to be a pretty darn good movie as well. Even though the title of the first would indicate that it should be the only word on the subject, I’m certainly willing to give a the idea of a sequel a shot as long as it offers up something that’s just as catchy as the original.

Unfortunately, that’s just not the case with The Last Exorcism Part II and what we have here just seems to totally dilute the effectiveness of the original. The first film is very much part of the “found footage” sub-genre, and it’s pretty effective, but what adds to it’s effectiveness is the other story which was what Cotton Marcus was doing in trying to expose the “reality” of exorcisms. That character was absolutely magnetic in the first film thanks to one terrific performance from actor Patrck Fabien. This sequel decides right off the bat that it’s not going to go the “found footage” route and that it will present itself as a traditional narrative, with the main focus being on the Nell Sweetzer character. No disrespect meant at all to actress Ashley Bell who’s reprising her role here, but the way this is presented, she’s just not strong enough to carry the film. But that’s only the start of the film’s problems.

As this movie starts off, it pretty much follows horror tropes that you’ve seen time and again. The opening few minutes are pretty good, but after that it falls into predictability- Nell starts to get better, she makes friends, she gets a job, she discovers a boy her likes her and it’s all peppered with little bits that act as jump scares that slowly start to unhinge the character again. That’s fine if you can come up with a way in which it all pays off effectively, but here, the solution from the filmmakers comes at us from left field.

Spoilers ahead here – two thirds through the film, the footage from the documentary that was being made around Cotton Marcus is discovered and has made it’s way to YouTube. Nell is discovered by a guy on the street who recognizes her from the video and soon starts to suffer from the consequences of that. As a crowd starts to gather, Nell is grabbed by a VooDoo practitioner named Cecile who says that her “group” has been watching her since she’s come to New Orleans, though this is the first overt way that we the audience are seeing it. Cecile takes Nell and tells her about her group, I believe it was called the Order of the Red Hand, and then they in turn try to help Nell by performing another exorcism on her. Now this would be all well and good if this group had been introduced right from the start, but as it is introduced, it just comes out of nowhere and just feels like it was put in because the filmmakers couldn’t think of anything else to do. What should’ve been done (or at least what I would’ve done- though I like to think I wouldn’t even have made a sequel in the first place) is that the “found footage” format should’ve been retained and this group should’ve been introduced from the start, filming what they were doing as a matter of posterity. You could’ve gone through the same motions of “curing” Nell, but seeing this from a group that was absolutely counter to the first group who were trying to raise Abalam with the “found footage” format adding much more needed immediacy to the events. In addition, this could’ve added a character or two (say like a more fleshed out Cecile) who could’ve added a whole other layer to the film, just as Cotton Marcus did in the first.

Ashley Bell isn’t the only actor from the first film to reprise her role here. Louis Herthum, who played her father is also back. Nell’s father starts to show up as tempting visions from Abalam to try and reclaim Nell. Again, not a bad idea but the execution is what’s at question; in the first film Herthum was clean shaven and when he shows up here he has a beard. Now when I first saw him with the beard, I didn’t even think it was the same actor, but as he showed up later, I did recognize him. This is just sloppy visual continuity, and there’s no excuse for it, or there should be no excuse for it (I get the feeling that the production was only going to get Herthum for a brief time, he needed the beard for another part and couldn’t shave it off for the time frame that he was needed for).

I don’t know who is ultimately to blame for this mess, but really this project should never have even been greenlit in the first place. I’ve read an interview with Eli Roth in which Roth has talked about decisions to go certain ways here, and I’d like to think that he should know better, but really I can’t say how much control he even had in the first place. I didn’t write a review of it, but I can say the same thing a movie from last year that Roth also produced called The Man with the Iron Fists written, directed and starring The RZA. This was also a pretty sloppy mess and what I came away from with was that as a writer, director and actor, The RZA is a good musician. I got the feeling that Roth’s connection with that was to basically make sure the train was running on time and I get the feeling that may be the case with The Last Exorcism Part II as well.

To be fair, I do think Ed Gass-Donnelly has a good eye and I certainly like the composition of the shots here. I also think the idea of the Order of the Red Hand is a good one, I just wish it hadn’t been so clumsily inserted in the film and instead it should’ve been the focus of the movie. Even with that said, The Last Exorcism Part II is still a huge mess and should just be avoided entirely. Between this and Texas Chainsaw 3D, so far 2013 isn’t a good year for horror films.

Categories
Announcement

Theatrical Review: Jack the Giant Slayer

Long ago, in the kingdom known as Cloister, a young peasant boy named Jack and the young princess Isabelle are simultaneously being told the story of a land of fierce and deformed giants that’s suspended in the sky, the giant beanstalk that connects the two and the ferocious appetite that the giants have for the taste of human flesh. To the children, it’s just a simple bedtime story but as they grow older, they soon discover that there’s truth to this tale.

Jack, now in his late teens, lives with his uncle, after his father has passed away. Times are tough for the two and the uncle charges Jack with the task of selling their horse and cart for enough money to repair their home. Isabelle has grown to want to have big adventures before she has to live a life of responsibility and eventual marriage to the suspicious Roderick who has his own devious plans for the kingdom. Soon the paths of both Jack and Isabelle cross, and that’s when they discover that the bedtime story of their childhood was indeed very true.

That’s a simplified premise to Jack the Giant Slayer the latest movie from director Bryan Singer, who’s best known for films like The Usual Suspects, the first two X-Men movies, Superman Returns and Valkyrie. I’m certainly a fan of Singer’s and was pretty keen to see what he’d do with this. We’ve seen a few classic fairy tales get a big-screen update, two of those, Red Riding Hood and Snow White and the Huntsman I can’t say I was very interested in seeing. The third, Hansel & Gretel; Witch Hunters was different for me and I enjoyed the movie very much. The biggest selling point for Jack the Giant Slayer was indeed the fact that Bryan Singer was directing it, and I gotta say, I had a lot of fun with this.

Now to be honest, there really isn’t a lot of huge depth to this story or to it’s characters. In fact, the characters are very two-dimensional, but in the context of the style of the film, I really don’t mind that. And the style of the film is pure broad spectacle and absurd action with the characters being the simplest strokes of good and evil. That in itself will probably be a huge turn-off for some, but for myself I was glad to see this “tall tale” approach taken to the classic story. Now of course, by what I described with the premise above, there’s liberties being taken here, but thanks to a clever little bit of business at the end of the film, that’s all put in some nice context to the nature of tall tales and how they change over the course of generations.

The movie is absolutely gorgeous and I’d even go so far as to say that I think it’s Singer’s best-looking film to date. The visual effects are spectacular and I really like the look of the giants. The look of the giants here, at least to me, share a commonality with the look of the trolls in the movie Troll Hunter in that they all look like they’re more designed to resemble the look of classic storybook illustrations instead of being overdone in a more realistic way. I chose to see the movie in 3D and I’m glad I did, Singer’s got a good understanding of what he wants to accomplish with it and he gets a world that’s very immersive as a result. Sure, it also has a smattering of “in-your-face” 3D effects, but immersion is the bigger result.

I was very impressed with the sheer absurdity of various situations and action in the film. There’s a bit midway through where one of the giants is preparing to eat a defender of the princess (Elmont played by Ewan McGregor) and he literally wraps him up in dough and puts him next to two pigs treated the same way, “pigs in a blanket” indeed. It was shown in the trailers, and I thought it was clever there, but seeing it in context was of course even more fun. Late in the movie, the giants of course start to attack Cloister and in the course of their attack they start to fling flaming trees into the village. This sort of action strikes me as the type of thing that you might see in a Monty Python film or more specifically a Terry Gilliam film, and while it makes sense that the giants do this, there’s also something that’s just very broad about it that I find totally appealing.

As I said, the characters are very two-dimensional, but here I don’t take that as a slight in the least. I think it serves Singer’s purpose and further, I think he’s cast it quite well. Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson play Jack and Isabelle respectively. I’m not really that familiar with Tomlinson, but Hoult gave a memorable performance as Hank McCoy, the X-Man known as The Beast, in X-Men: First Class. I think the two are extremely likable and have nice chemistry with each other. There’s a few aspects to Hoult’s Jack that make me think of Nigel Terry’s young King Arthur from the movie Excalibur and I think this kid will be one of those to watch out for in the future, to be sure. As mentioned above, Ewan McGregor plays Elmont, one of the kingdom’s elite warriors, and I think McGregor’s having a ball here, sort of giving us a combination of what you might get if Eddie Izzard played Obi-Wan Kenobi. Stanley Tucci plays Roderick and he’s very appropriately cast for the part, Roderick is full of smarm and that’s certainly been a big part of a lot of the character roles that Tucci’s played in the past. Ian McShane plays the King of Cloister and while the actor doesn’t get to be as showy as he’s been in past roles, his presence certainly adds gravity to being the king.

Not exactly for sure how the giants were created here- oh sure CGI is obvious but just not for sure if motion capture was involved using the real actors. The great Bill Nighy is credited with the part of General Fallon the two-headed leader of the giants with John Kassir being credited as playing his small head. I found it amusing to watch the two heads interact even though those interactions are fairly simplistic, but still you’d hear one grunt at the other in a knowing way and I’d certainly like to think there was some play between the actors on that, but I don’t know for sure. But still it’s a nifty character as are Fallon’s lead warriors, Fee, Fye, Foe and Fumm.

I know some will probably just find Jack the Giant Slayer totally boring just because there isn’t great depth to the story or the characters, but I just don’t think that was the point. I think Bryan Singer set out to make a basic good versus evil story and just wants to entertain you with the sheer spectacle of the idea. Will that be enough? Well, it certainly worked for me and I was surprised at just how much I had a smile on my face during the film and gently laughed over the absurdity of some of the situations. For that, of course, I can’t help but recommend it… this is fun stuff.